#10 - A fundamental illusion in robotics is the belief that

[Harneet]

Hi,

I am confused as to how (E) is correct. The conclusion states that "robots will not eliminate demeaning work". So, even if (E) is taken to be true and robots eliminate significantly more demeaning work than they create, the demeaning work still exists. Therefore, it is not eliminated and the conclusion in the stimulus is still correct.

[Frank Peter]

Hi Harneet,

You raise a good point. One challenge with weaken questions is that the correct answer choice doesn't necessarily have to completely kill the argument - just point out a potential flaw. It appears that the author is assuming that there is a 1:1 relationship between the demeaning work eliminated and the demeaning work created (i.e. "only substitute one type of demeaning work for another."). (E) attacks this assumption by pointing out that robots may reduce more demeaning work than they create.

[jjuni91]

Hi PS,

Can you please help explain why answer choice B is incorrect?

I understood why answer choice E is the correct answer choice, I initially chose answer choice B.

My reasoning for selecting the answer choice B was that I thought the author was assuming "least expensive, least skilled human labor possible" is also demeaning work. Whereas the least expensive, least skilled human labor that robots did not replace may not be demeaning work. Then I chose answer choice B.

It appears that this argument does not contain a circular reasoning flaw as answer choice B is not the correct answer. Even though I went through the PS LR Bible circular reasoning section, I am still having a hard time pointing out when the argument contains a circular reasoning flaw. Is there any tip on this?

Thanks,
Jason

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Jason,

One of the reasons circular reasoning is tough is because it's just so rare as a correct answer. A circular argument has the same premise as conclusion. You can replace one for the other. If there are other premises provided, other reasoning, it's not going to be circular.

Here's an example: People like Thomas because he's popular.

The premise of "he's popular" means the same thing as "people like Thomas." There's no additional information or reasoning given.

In this stimulus, we have a conclusion that is different from the premises.

P: Robots should eventually free people from demeaning labor
P: Engineers are creating robots that can only be maintained with minimally skilled labor
C: Robots will not eliminate demeaning work

This isn't circular because the premises and the conclusion mean different things. The fact that the engineers are creating robots that require some labor is different in meaning than the conclusion. Even if the reasoning isn't good, even if the premises don't completely support the conclusion, an argument can't be circular if there are logical differences between the premises and the conclusion.

Hope that helps!